Aren't we at least better than the Yankees? Not that it matters what the columnists say now, but we were at the top of these lists last year. Hopefully things like this will give our guys that underdog attitude they seem to need to perform well.

Mr.1Dog

02-12-2007, 02:07 PM

You seem to be forgetting who he works for.

getonbckthr

02-12-2007, 02:08 PM

The reason the Sox won't get mentioned is Buerhle was not good last year. Contreras ended weak. Javy couldn't get passed the 5th all year. Plus as much as I like the move of trading Freddy it still has to be a big question mark until results are shown.

Beer Can Chicken

02-12-2007, 02:11 PM

Javier Vazquez was our 5th starter last year, now he is our 4th and we don't know who our #5 is going to be. I don't think its much of a stretch to say we aren't in the top 5 rotations in baseball.
This isn't to say once the season begins we won't be a top 5 rotation. We just have some question marks, that's all.

spiffie

02-12-2007, 02:12 PM

What a pile of east-coast media horse****. There is not a single rotation listed there that is better than our rotation. 4 All-Stars and a Top 5 Draft Pick.

Please, the Red Sox? With an unproven pitcher, a guy who struggled in the AL, a couple of guys around 40, and a guy who spent all last year closing games. Yeah, that's real intimidating. Compared to ****ing Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras, Javy Vazquez, and Jon Garland, those names look like total weaksauce.

Here's a better ranking of MLB rotations:
1. White Sox
2. No one, there's no one within one of the Sox.
3. doesn't matter, they can't touch us.

FedEx227

02-12-2007, 02:18 PM

I'd take the Tigers well over the Red Sox. That's a joke to call the Red Sox the number one rotation in baseball when they struggled so badly last year. But hey, it's an ESPN article, what do you expect.

Over By There

02-12-2007, 02:24 PM

I'm not sure I'd put the Red Sox in the top 10, much less #1. Too many question marks. No one knows what Matzuzaka is going to do, Schilling is getting old (and certainly doesn't scare me as a fan of a rival team), Beckett was garbage most of last year, it's Papelbon's first year starting, and to round things off... a knuckleballer? Gimme a break.

NardiWasHere

02-12-2007, 02:40 PM

No one in the league has a sure thing at every spot in the rotation. I don't really mind the list, my only problem with it is the Yanks. They improved, but I'm not sure if you can put them top-5. I like Wang and Andy P. will be decent. Mussina, eh... I'm lukewarm on him at this stage of his career. The back two spots are questionable too.

Red Sox, if all things fall into place, could have a pretty good staff.

I like both the Dodgers and the Tigers staffs too. Oh, and Weaver and Santana make LAAA's rotation exciting.

Realistically, you can't expect the Sox rotation to be ranked top five after last year. BUT if things work out, they have just as much of a chance to be outstanding as any of these other teams.

balke

02-12-2007, 02:55 PM

I don't agree with the Angels and Yankees. What about the Athletics Cubs or Sox?

NardiWasHere

02-12-2007, 03:04 PM

I don't agree with the Angels and Yankees. What about the Athletics Cubs or Sox?

Cubs? Come on now!

ondafarm

02-12-2007, 03:08 PM

Another writer who only thinks of New England when thinking of baseball.

Pretty much clueless.

PatK

02-12-2007, 03:23 PM

OMG is that article bad.

By using the same criteria they used to rate the Red Sox #1, wouldn't the White Sox be just as good, if not better?

Lukin13

02-12-2007, 03:24 PM

angels
tigers
white sox
yankees
red sox
dodgers

my list... but obviously on paper the numbers will paint a different story, gotta like any minor league (NL) team.

VenturaFan23

02-12-2007, 03:24 PM

Another writer who only thinks of New England when thinking of baseball.

Pretty much clueless.

That's pretty much everyone on ESPN.

WizardsofOzzie

02-12-2007, 03:25 PM

I don't agree with the Angels and Yankees. What about the Athletics Cubs or Sox?

Here's a better ranking of MLB rotations:
1. White Sox
2. No one, there's no one within one of the Sox.
3. doesn't matter, they can't touch us.

Why? Because three of the Sox' starting five were firing on all cylinders two years ago?

IF Buerhle gets back the Buerhle way, and IF Contreras' run at the top wasn't a fluke, and IF Jon Garland hasn't already plateaued, and IF Javy can make it past the 5th inning, and IF the #5 spot magically works out beyond expectations, then we have a hell of a rotation.

True, that's 4 all-stars and a high draft pick. It's also four pretty big "if's."

WizardsofOzzie

02-12-2007, 03:38 PM

Why? Because three of the Sox' starting five were firing on all cylinders two years ago?

IF Buerhle gets back the Buerhle way, and IF Contreras' run at the top wasn't a fluke, and IF Jon Garland hasn't already plateaued, and IF Javy can make it past the 5th inning, and IF the #5 spot magically works out beyond expectations, then we have a hell of a rotation.

True, that's 4 all-stars and a high draft pick. It's also four pretty big "if's."
Well said :thumbsup:

spiffie

02-12-2007, 03:39 PM

Why? Because three of the Sox' starting five were firing on all cylinders two years ago?

IF Buerhle gets back the Buerhle way, and IF Contreras' run at the top wasn't a fluke, and IF Jon Garland hasn't already plateaued, and IF Javy can make it past the 5th inning, and IF the #5 spot magically works out beyond expectations, then we have a hell of a rotation.

True, that's 4 all-stars and a high draft pick. It's also four pretty big "if's."
Want an umbrella for life under that dark cloud?

Buehrle had a single off-year caused by all sorts of factors. No reason to believe he won't be the pitcher he's always been. Contreras has now had a full offseason to heal, and should return to Ace form. If Jon Garland has plateaued as a guy who wins 18 games a year, that's fine by me. Javy looked great at the end of last year, and is on the same improvement time frame that Jose showed when he arrived here. No reason not to expect good performance from him. That alone is better than any other rotation. Add to that a prospect that Kenny Williams thinks is going to be a stud, and that's a #1 rotation.

Jjav829

02-12-2007, 03:41 PM

What a pile of east-coast media horse****. There is not a single rotation listed there that is better than our rotation. 4 All-Stars and a Top 5 Draft Pick.

Please, the Red Sox? With an unproven pitcher, a guy who struggled in the AL, a couple of guys around 40, and a guy who spent all last year closing games. Yeah, that's real intimidating. Compared to ****ing Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras, Javy Vazquez, and Jon Garland, those names look like total weaksauce.

Here's a better ranking of MLB rotations:
1. White Sox
2. No one, there's no one within one of the Sox.
3. doesn't matter, they can't touch us.

And yet we missed out on the playoffs last year, why? Because our starting pitching sucked. You can't honestly think we have some great rotation that no other team can match. We don't even know who our #5 starter is, and the guy who is the favorite hasn't shown much at all.

Here's the ERAs of our other 4 starters last year - 4.99, 4.27, 4.84, 4.51. One starter who had an ERA under 4.5 last year. Not exactly dominant. Don't get me wrong, I expect a few of our starters to have better years, mainly Mark Buehrle. But you can't accuse ESPN of having an east coast bias and then make a post that is completely biased toward the Sox.

I wouldn't put the Red Sox #1. There is certainly a ton of potential there, but they are too unproven. I'd put the Angels #1. John Lackey, Ervin Santana, Jered Weaver and Kelvim Escobar are one hell of a 1-4. And that doesn't even include Bartolo Colon's potential impact if healthy.

The only one I think is completely off is the Yankees. Moose, Pettitte and Wang give them three solid pitchers, but none of them is exactly an ace. I can also see the Tigers falling off significantly. I think Bonderman will take another step forward this year, but I really can't see Verlander having as good of a year in 2007 as he did in 2006. I expect the increase in innings is going to catch up to him this year.

areilly

02-12-2007, 04:19 PM

Want an umbrella for life under that dark cloud?

Buehrle had a single off-year caused by all sorts of factors. No reason to believe he won't be the pitcher he's always been. Contreras has now had a full offseason to heal, and should return to Ace form. If Jon Garland has plateaued as a guy who wins 18 games a year, that's fine by me. Javy looked great at the end of last year, and is on the same improvement time frame that Jose showed when he arrived here. No reason not to expect good performance from him. That alone is better than any other rotation. Add to that a prospect that Kenny Williams thinks is going to be a stud, and that's a #1 rotation.

What factors? The extra 23.3 innings he threw in the 2005 postseason? The injuries he never sustained? Why is there any reason to believe MB will bounce back?

Pitchers fall off all the time, and I'll believe he's regained form when I see it. Same goes for Javy and Jose. Jose showed ace talent for about 6 months across a four-year MLB career. Hardly compelling.

And as for what Kenny Williams thinks, just remember that:

Kenny Williams thought David Wells was the power pitcher that would push the Sox over the top and into the World Series.

Kenny Williams said there was no way he'd ever get rid of Brandon McCarthy.

Kenny Williams engineered the Todd Ritchie trade.

Kenny Williams thought Joe Borchard was the outfielder of the future.

Kenny Williams said Miguel Olivo was the only piece of the Sox' plans through 2006 that was no longer present.

Kenny Williams said he wasn't going to trade more than 1 starter this off-season and almost ended up trading three.

You can call me a dark cloud all you want, but by the same token I'll ask what KW and Uncle Jerry have been putting in your Kool-Aid. Right now, the only things working in the Sox' staff favor a few sentences that start with "In 2005" or questions that are answered with "Well, he used to."

To say they're the best in baseball, or even in their own division, is laughable beyond what I am capable of putting into words.

WhiteSox5187

02-12-2007, 04:25 PM

Boy, I think the Red Sox have just as many question marks in their rotation as the White Sox do. You have Curt Shilling whose best years are in the rear view mirror, a knuckleballer, a guy who has never thrown a pitch in the United States, and a reliever coming into the rotation? The Sox probably have fewer question marks acutally. But then again, what else would you expect of ESPN?

FarWestChicago

02-12-2007, 04:45 PM

You can call me a dark cloud all you wantNah, you're not a Dark Cloud. You're more of a complete wuss.

WhiteSox5187

02-12-2007, 05:20 PM

Nah, you're not a Dark Cloud. You're more of a complete wuss.
I'm not so sure that that is ENTIRELY fair. He does have a good point, I think he's wrong, but a valid point.

FarWestChicago

02-12-2007, 05:23 PM

I'm not so sure that that is ENTIRELY fair. He does have a good point, I think he's wrong, but a valid point.It's fair. I didn't write the negative novel, he did.

oeo

02-12-2007, 05:28 PM

What factors? The extra 23.3 innings he threw in the 2005 postseason? The injuries he never sustained? Why is there any reason to believe MB will bounce back?

Why is there any reason to believe that he has 'fallen off'? Off years happen all the time.

There is no reason, it's called an opinion. You have no basis on your opinion either, other than he had a bad season last year. He's not old, so I find it highly unlikely that he suddenly sucks.

And those 24 innings that he pitched extra equated to an entire month of extra throwing that he would not normally do. And a lot of people seem to forget that he wasn't awful the whole season; it started in about late-May or early-June. So yes, I can see fatigue being a factor.

Dan Mega

02-12-2007, 05:30 PM

The only one I think is completely off is the Yankees. Moose, Pettitte and Wang give them three solid pitchers, but none of them is exactly an ace. I can also see the Tigers falling off significantly. I think Bonderman will take another step forward this year, but I really can't see Verlander having as good of a year in 2007 as he did in 2006. I expect the increase in innings is going to catch up to him this year.

You know, I don't think the Tankees will be too terrible for their starters. Like you said, they have 3 solid guys who can possibly give them a ton of innings, plus they have a couple of decent young arms, so who knows? They have Pavano but he belongs on the flubs.

With that being said I hope they finish dead last in the AL LEast.

Dan Mega

02-12-2007, 05:33 PM

Why? Because three of the Sox' starting five were firing on all cylinders two years ago?

IF Buerhle gets back the Buerhle way, and IF Contreras' run at the top wasn't a fluke, and IF Jon Garland hasn't already plateaued, and IF Javy can make it past the 5th inning, and IF the #5 spot magically works out beyond expectations, then we have a hell of a rotation.

True, that's 4 all-stars and a high draft pick. It's also four pretty big "if's."

Tell me this, besides Johan Santana, what pitcher in MLB isn't an "IF"??? None. Who knows if Halladay can stay healthy. Who knows if Zambrano won't lose a gasket again and his ERA skyrockets.

JB98

02-12-2007, 06:17 PM

Cubs? Don't they have Zambrano and four midgets?

PKalltheway

02-12-2007, 06:24 PM

Call me crazy, but I think the Tigers have the top rotation going into this year. I just don't think that Bonderman and Verlander will fall off this year. I think they'll come back just as strong, if not, better.

Murphy10

02-12-2007, 06:29 PM

Cubs? Don't they have Zambrano and four midgets?
Yeah that reallly gets me mad.

And I've always liked Tim Kurkjian, to me Buster Onley and him are the only two from ESPN i trust. I cannot stand to hear anything that comes out of Kruk's mouth. Or stand to hear anyhting that Peter Gammons has to say about Boston and New York.

JB98

02-12-2007, 06:29 PM

Call me crazy, but I think the Tigers have the top rotation going into this year. I just don't think that Bonderman and Verlander will fall off this year. I think they'll come back just as strong, if not, better.

Bonderman will be good again. I have some serious questions about Verlander. He tapered off in the second half last year, and he had some shoulder trouble. Not sure if he's going to come back strong.

I'm more worried about Cleveland than any team in our division. (Yes, I know I'm nuts.) I know their bullpen sucks, but all those left-handed starters bother me. I feel we can hit Detroit's power righties, but I don't have as much confidence in Sox hitters going up against Cleveland's lefties, especially Sabathia.

JB98

02-12-2007, 06:30 PM

Yeah that reallly gets me mad.

And I've always liked Tim Kurkjian, to me Buster Onley and him are the only two from ESPN i trust. I cannot stand to hear anything that comes out of Kruk's mouth. Or stand to hear anyhting that Peter Gammons has to say about Boston and New York.

Actually, Kurkjian didn't bring up the Cubs. Not even he is that stupid. Another poster in this thread mentioned them, bringing snickers from the rest of us.

98navigator

02-12-2007, 06:54 PM

If Buehrle returns to his career norms we should be SOLID with our first 4 starters again. I'm also fairly confident that Coop will be able to work his magic with Gavin Floyd, et al, so that we don't have a repeat of the 2004 fifth starter fiasco. I trust KW; he/the scouts must have seen something in these guys... Personally, I'd like to see Haeger in the 5th slot but I think Floyd will be given every opportunity to win the spot. Unless I'm mistaken, Gavin is out of options so if we're going to keep him he has to stay on the 25 man roster (which could be at someone else's expense). He is a former first rounder so he definitely has talent. I can't wait to see the Spring games and know what we're working with!!

thomas35forever

02-12-2007, 07:24 PM

:whocares

TDog

02-12-2007, 07:33 PM

Cubs? Come on now!

Remember when everyone was saying the Cubs had not only the best rotation in baseball but one of the best of their generation with Wood, Prior, Zambrano, Clement and Maddux? The Cubs finished in third place that year. It's easy to be a great pitcher when you're not pitching. The 2004 Cubs rotation was loaded with question marks that nobody acknowledged.

The fact is, every rotation has question marks. Just as last season White Sox fans didn't like like the answers, there are rotations getting people excited this February that will make their fans cringe by July.

ondafarm

02-12-2007, 09:08 PM

Tell me this, besides Johan Santana, what pitcher in MLB isn't an "IF"??? None. Who knows if Halladay can stay healthy. Who knows if Zambrano won't lose a gasket again and his ERA skyrockets.

Honestly, I'd even include Santana. Is he anywhere near as great oustide the dome?

JB98

02-12-2007, 09:15 PM

Honestly, I'd even include Santana. Is he anywhere near as great oustide the dome?

Only against the Sox.

caulfield12

02-12-2007, 10:50 PM

What factors? The extra 23.3 innings he threw in the 2005 postseason? The injuries he never sustained? Why is there any reason to believe MB will bounce back?

Pitchers fall off all the time, and I'll believe he's regained form when I see it. Same goes for Javy and Jose. Jose showed ace talent for about 6 months across a four-year MLB career. Hardly compelling.

And as for what Kenny Williams thinks, just remember that:

Kenny Williams thought David Wells was the power pitcher that would push the Sox over the top and into the World Series.

Kenny Williams said there was no way he'd ever get rid of Brandon McCarthy.

Kenny Williams engineered the Todd Ritchie trade.

Kenny Williams thought Joe Borchard was the outfielder of the future.

Kenny Williams said Miguel Olivo was the only piece of the Sox' plans through 2006 that was no longer present.

Kenny Williams said he wasn't going to trade more than 1 starter this off-season and almost ended up trading three.

You can call me a dark cloud all you want, but by the same token I'll ask what KW and Uncle Jerry have been putting in your Kool-Aid. Right now, the only things working in the Sox' staff favor a few sentences that start with "In 2005" or questions that are answered with "Well, he used to."

To say they're the best in baseball, or even in their own division, is laughable beyond what I am capable of putting into words.

David Wells was no longer a power pitcher when we got him. He was slowly evolving into a finesse pitcher. He was the savvy veteran that would be a good influence on Buerhle, Wells, Garland, etc., and provide a reliable #2 starter with playoff and WS experience.

KW changed his opinion on Brandon in the 2nd half of this season, when his gopherball problems became an epidemic.

KW knew that Wells and Fogg were never going to lead the White Sox to the World Series, and took a calculated risk for a veteran starter who he thought would be a #3 and wouldn't be in danger of going down to the minors, like Wells.

KW inherited Borchard. Whatever he said, it was only said to boost his trade value, as the organization had strong indications Borchard wouldn't make it in the majors as early as 2002/2003. We also had no way to "gently" break him into the line-up and just let him play for an entire season under no pressure. This has hindered a number of Sox prospects, the fact that we are almost never in complete rebuilding mode.

He had "irons" in the fire simultaneously. I think he knew all along Garcia was gone, and was waiting to pull the trigger if he could get what he wanted on Brandon, which he did. With less of a return, Brandon comes into the season fighting Floyd for the 5th spot. If you want to believe he was going to trade another starter after dealing two, that's your prerogative.

The rotation was viewed as the best in baseball coming into last year, where it was merely average. The second half of the season offered no compelling reason (maybe Vazquez's rebound) to view them as anything above that coming into this season, especially with Floyd's insertion into the rotation. That doesn't mean they can't put together a sub-4.00 staff ERA, any more than it means that you can never count the Twins out. For all we know, Ponson/Silva/Ortiz will all win 14+ games and lead them back to the playoffs, along with Santana, Bonser and Garza.

caulfield12

02-12-2007, 10:55 PM

I think you can now add Chris Young and Brandon McCarthy to the Olivo list. However, there were so many flaws in Olivo's game offensively and defensively that his two "plus" talents (speed for a catcher and arm strength) were negated by poor throwing technique and footwork, tremendous difficulties with game-calling and the fact that he was best-suited as a platoon catcher, not an everyday player.

KW knew there were other teams out there who viewed him as a "regular," and he needed Garcia at the time to stabilize the rotation and provide some added veteran "big game" leadership and prestige.

IndianWhiteSox

02-13-2007, 05:11 AM

:whocares

Agreed.

Bonderman will be good again. I have some serious questions about Verlander. He tapered off in the second half last year, and he had some shoulder trouble. Not sure if he's going to come back strong.

I'm more worried about Cleveland than any team in our division. (Yes, I know I'm nuts.) I know their bullpen sucks, but all those left-handed starters bother me. I feel we can hit Detroit's power righties, but I don't have as much confidence in Sox hitters going up against Cleveland's lefties, especially Sabathia.

I'm not so sure about that Cleveland seems to have some sort of inferior complex against the AL Central and never seems to be able to take that next step. Detroit may not be as good with all their pitchers bound to have an off year especially with the whole world looking watching Kenny Rogers dirty hand.
Why? Because three of the Sox' starting five were firing on all cylinders two years ago?

IF Buerhle gets back the Buerhle way, and IF Contreras' run at the top wasn't a fluke, and IF Jon Garland hasn't already plateaued, and IF Javy can make it past the 5th inning, and IF the #5 spot magically works out beyond expectations, then we have a hell of a rotation.

True, that's 4 all-stars and a high draft pick. It's also four pretty big "if's."

You also realize that Mac alone in CF cost the Sox about 10 games with his great defense. Which means with the signing of Erstad that better defense in the middle usually means better pitching. It means that pitchers would be able to be more confident in their pitches and no longer feel like they have to be perfect as Vazquez and others felt much of the year.

chaerulez

02-13-2007, 05:28 AM

What a pile of east-coast media horse****. There is not a single rotation listed there that is better than our rotation. 4 All-Stars and a Top 5 Draft Pick.

Please, the Red Sox? With an unproven pitcher, a guy who struggled in the AL, a couple of guys around 40, and a guy who spent all last year closing games. Yeah, that's real intimidating. Compared to ****ing Mark Buehrle, Jose Contreras, Javy Vazquez, and Jon Garland, those names look like total weaksauce.

Here's a better ranking of MLB rotations:
1. White Sox
2. No one, there's no one within one of the Sox.
3. doesn't matter, they can't touch us.

:rolleyes:

As Jjav said, if our rotation was truly #1 in MLB, we would've made the playoffs last year. The Tigers are #1 and I would give the Angels #2 at this point. Other than that, it's hard to say who is next there are too many what ifs with the White Sox, Red Sox, Yankees, A's, Dodgers, and any other rotation you want to throw into the mix. Each one of those teams will be relying on an unproven player or a pitcher coming off a down year. I'm not discounting that the White Sox COULD have a top 5 rotation in 2007, infact it's something I expect if we are to have any kind of success. However, to say the White Sox have the clear top rotation in baseball is Hawk like homerism.

tick53

02-13-2007, 10:31 AM

You seem to be forgetting who he works for.
:praying:
AMEN

Jurr

02-13-2007, 11:18 AM

Bonderman will be good again. I have some serious questions about Verlander. He tapered off in the second half last year, and he had some shoulder trouble. Not sure if he's going to come back strong.

I'm more worried about Cleveland than any team in our division. (Yes, I know I'm nuts.) I know their bullpen sucks, but all those left-handed starters bother me. I feel we can hit Detroit's power righties, but I don't have as much confidence in Sox hitters going up against Cleveland's lefties, especially Sabathia.
Right there with ya. Mum's the word in Cleveland, and those boys look ready to roll. Though I'm not sold on Sowers in the rotation or Borowski closing, that team can hit, and the Sabathia/Lee/Westbrook/Byrd monster can rack up wins.

That's really why I don't think the AL Central's getting two teams in this year. Everybody's really good except for KC, and it's going to be a dogfight.

Jurr

02-13-2007, 11:20 AM

BTW, Kurkijan can't see anything past the AL East. He's far worse than Gammons to that end, and that's hard to do.

maurice

02-13-2007, 12:30 PM

You can't say that the Sox rotation has ?s and refuse to acknowledge that the rotations he names also have ?s. Heck, the lists some of them. Everybody is depending on veterans to stay healthy and / or return to form. Pretty much everybody is relying on guys who are unproven as MLB starters.

caulfield12

02-13-2007, 04:24 PM

You can't say that the Sox rotation has ?s and refuse to acknowledge that the rotations he names also have ?s. Heck, the lists some of them. Everybody is depending on veterans to stay healthy and / or return to form. Pretty much everybody is relying on guys who are unproven as MLB starters.

Which is a little bit like naming the Mets' outfield one of the best.

Sure, "ON PAPER," it looks and sounds great, 3-5 years ago.

mmmmmbeeer

02-13-2007, 11:07 PM

Last preseason these same prognosticators were saying the Sox possessed perhaps one of the best rotations "ever". We saw how that turned out.

Palehose Pete

02-13-2007, 11:18 PM

TK says that pretty much any staff in the bigs "has the potential" to be great. Meh. That opinion and a $1.05 gets you a coffee. Of course, the Red Sox and Yanks had to be included in his list. What surprises me is that he didn't somehow shoehorn the Cubs into the article. Wake me up when the Sox meet in Tuscon.